+0
I was reading a question about whether the following sentences were correct. There were various different answers:

1a) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, of which I parked two.

1b) I was part of a project, of which I believed in the importance.

1a) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, two of which I parked.
1b) I was part of a project the importance, of which I believed in


Would you say all are accetpable (forgetting that they may be slightly awkward or uncommon)?

Thanks
Comments  
English 1b3I was reading a question about whether the following sentences were correct. There were various different answers:

1a) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, of which I parked two. Makes no sense.

1b) I was part of a project, of which I believed in the importance. ""The importance of which" works for me.

1a) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, two of which I parked. Logically impossible.
1b) I was part of a project the importance, of which I believed in
Move the comma to "project," or eliminate it. Otherwise, okay.

Would you say all are accetpable (forgetting that they may be slightly awkward or uncommon)?

Thanks

"A bunch" is way more than two.
I parked seventeen cars, two of which I parked. I don't get it!
Sorry, Avangi! Instead of just copying and pasting the sentences, I wrote them down, just before drifting off to sleep. Clearly this was not a good idea.

1a and 2a should read:

I parked a whole bunch of cars, of which I owned two.

I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, two of which I owned.

Furthermore, I made a misake with 1b. It should read with the comma after project' as you pointed out.
Site Hint: Check out our list of pronunciation videos.
Next time, try it just after drifting off to sleep. It works for me!
English 1b31) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, of which I owned two.

2) I was part of a project, of which I believed in the importance.

3) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, two of which I owned.
4) I was part of a project, the importance of which I believed in
.

(corrected as noted above and renumbered)They are all OK except 2.

CJ
CalifJimThey are all OK except 2.

Emotion: sad Why is 2 wrong?
Students: Are you brave enough to let our tutors analyse your pronunciation?
English 1b3Why is 2 wrong?
Your guess is as good as mine. It may have something to do with being "too deep" in prepositional phrases. Below I marked the one I find ungrammatical.

1) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, of which I owned two.
2) I was part of a project, of which I believed in the importance.
3) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage, two of which I owned.
4) I was part of a project, the importance of which I believed in.

A) I parked a whole bunch of cars in my garage,

two of which | I owned

of which | I owned two
which | I owned two of

B) I was part of a project,

the importance of which | I believed in

*of which | I believed in | the importance
which | I believed in | the importance of

I couldn't find an obvious answer anywhere, but if you want to research it, note that it may have something to do with "islands", "island constraints", "adjuncts vs. complements", "stranding", "pied-piping", and/or "WH Movement".

My wild guess is that (in the simplest possible language) if you have two prepositional phrases, you have to arrange it so that one of the two prepositions is at the end of the relative clause, moving everything else to accommodate this pattern.

CJ

P.S. I tried my wild guess on a few sentences, and it doesn't always work. There are undoubtedly some complicated reasons why some follow the preposition-at-the-end rule and some do not. I suspect it has to do with the difference between adjunct vs. complement prepositional phrases, but I don't know enough about these subtleties to pursue it further. Emotion: sad
Thank you for your trying to get your head around this. It seems it is a far more technical aspect of grammar than I first believed, so much so that I think I'll wait until someone with a greater understanding of the language than I draws conclusions for me in layman's terms.

CalifJimMy wild guess is that (in the simplest possible language) if you have two prepositional phrases, you have to arrange it so that one of the two prepositions is at the end of the relative clause, moving everything else to accommodate this pattern
This seems logical, since the number of prepositional phrases within the relative clause is the only obvious difference between this sentence and its grammatical counterpart, # 1.

Also, if you, Avangi, or anyone else could have a glimpse at any of these...that would be great:

http://www.EnglishForward.com/English/SubjunctiveDirectObjectNoun-Clause/nggzh/post.htm

http://www.EnglishForward.com/English/PhraseType/ngggb/post.htm

http://www.EnglishForward.com/English/ConjunctionsOmitted/ngggk/post.htm